Saving energy is silly; the bottom line is money (was Forklifts tip

> The claim has been made by Gregg Maryniak on Economist.com that it would be cheaper ("The moon is the best near-term source of the materials that we need to do useful things in space"), because the moon's escape energy is 1/22nd that of a hypothetical non-rotating Earth, to source raw materials for orbital habitats from the moon than from the earth. My response is that it might not be cheaper, when we factor in the negative aspects of doing business on the moon.
> You're attempting to counter a known, hard-and-fast quantity (the kinetic energy difference resulting from the different delta-V) with a hypothetical (that lunar industries will be crippled by the lower gravity).

Nope.

> nothing will ever reverse the energy difference.

Is energy expensive? Nope. Today, we pump Saudi oil for $2/bbl and buy U3O8 fission fuel for the equivalent of $0.01/bbl of oil energy.
http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_2yr-price.html

Therefore, energy differences are not directly relevant. Only 3% of the Saturn 5 launch costs covered fuel (ref.: LEO on the Cheap). Launch costs have virtually nothing to do with energy costs.